lemonmelon @ lemonmelon @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

321

Joined

1 yr. ago

You're implying that you believe I've resorted to "personal attacks" while simultaneously ignoring the very clear point I am making.

Explain how browser history is the key to resolving the issue. Explain how legislation that could, and therefore would, be used against progressivism is a solution. Explain how public dissection of candidates has ever helped anyone other than the right.

I'll answer your question with others: how many candidates campaigning on progressive platforms with ties to such organizations and societies do you believe exist? How many secret Nazis are out there running on an agenda with equality as a core tenant? How many KKK sleeper agents do you think there are who are seeking office under the pretense of being left-leaning? These people out themselves, they have little interest in subterfuge during the best of times. We are not in the best of times.

We are operating in a day where the worst among us are far from hidden, yet you're seeking to create a bogeyman even while our monsters parade around in broad daylight. The onus lies with you to justify what you've proposed. So far, you have not. Unless you have anything to say that doesn't default back to trying to discover that which is already exposed, I believe it's safe to say that this discussion has run its course.

Please point out to me where I said such, or where I even implied it. You can't, because I didn't, but I would love to know which part you find appropriate to project such nonsense onto.

After you move past your poor attempt at bad-faith mischaracterization, assuming you're capable and willing to do so, re-read what I actually did say and see if you can wrap your head around the idea of unforseen consequences.

Open your eyes; we have people with openly fascist leanings and blatant bigots in office right now. We know about them. They are not operating in secrecy. They are campaigning on platforms of intolerance and hate. Regardless of what flavor of horrible they are, be it KKK or Nazi or MAGA or whatever else, their actions out them more clearly than any browser history ever could. What you propose doesn't hinder their pursuit of their goals. Legislation like this would make those goals more easily attainable.

The second half was a joke about fetishes. Some could seem bizarre to others while ultimately benign. That it didn't land with you is informative.

Your response, in general, is troubling in its shortsightedness. Stripping away all privacy as a requirement for office is not the filter you want it to be. Recent history illustrates that certain movements are unfazed by repulsive behavior as long as they believe a candidate will get them what they want. With that in mind, who would stand to be damaged most by your proposed requirement: the candidate who visited Nazi websites or the one whose browser history includes research on how to help someone legally obtain an abortion?

Taking it further, who do you suppose would be most likely to use such information to self-cannibalize, the already barely cohesive left or the increasingly monolithic right? Consider that the post-9/11 reality we live in has seen both a constant erosion of personal privacy and a steady shift towards fascism, and ask yourself if you can honestly say that the two are unrelated. In this scenario, who truly benefits from stripping away privacy rights from those seeking office?

You suggest a law that would almost certainly be weaponized, which I do believe is your intent, but the most likely targets aren't who you seem to think they would be.

Firstly, because seeking public office should not incur a complete loss of privacy.

Secondly, because what we'd see would likely be mortifying.

I mean there's probably some things there that simply can never be unseen. No amount of brain bleach could ever suffice.

What an absolutely disgusting thought. On multiple levels.

And the Ship of Theses is when you rewrite the seven parts of your dissertation so many times that you're not sure if it's even your original intent anymore

See that's the whole problem, gotta shell out for better wigs.

"It costs a lot of money to look this cheap!"

Hunter the Vampire would be a great name for a show starring Walton Goggins and Danny McBride

Bird up

Plus I can't even think of a popular show in the past 10 years that had a meaningful conclusion. I don't really watch a lot of TV so this could easily just be that I'm out of the loop, but it seems like a lot of endings are bad.

Justified ended in 2015, Better Call Saul wrapped up in 2022. I think those two qualify as solid conclusions. It speaks to your point that I could only readily come up with two examples.

I find it hard to take seriously anyone who throws the term FUD around with no sense of irony.

Libya gained independence from Italy on February 10. 1947. Hillary Rodham was born on October 26, 1947. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that her conception lines up directly with the Italian signing of the Treaty of Paris.

From her very own "Contract with Colorado":

Leadership. I am a strong conservative with principles that I will always stand up for. I’ll hold myself accountable and you can, too. I can be reached at Lauren@LaurenforColorado.com.

If part of your campaign is specifically about being principled and holding yourself accountable, a sex act in a public space is absolutely fair game regardless of the venue in which the question is posed.

I think downvotes on truly unpopular opinions probably come from users who don't notice which community the post is in.

Is boot licking made better or worse when the licked boots are apathetic?

Sensationalist journalism. This manifests as clickbait headlines, agenda pieces, and other such tactics.

That dog is a star

Blackberry jam is my go-to

I see this sentiment often, which has afforded me the chance to reflect on it. The hypothetical smarter, shrewder, Trump-like candidate would likely hold less appeal to the party. As it stands, aspiring connivers operate under the belief that they can exert enough control to get what they want, consequences be damned. Essentially, they are gambling that they can act as the ego to his id on matters that they prioritize. A more intelligent candidate would certainly have a higher degree of agency and thus would be of less value to the manipulators. Trump, and those who resemble him, are the most dangerous sort.

This is the best answer I've been able to formulate as to why those who present as fools and dunces form the face of the MAGA movement. These people are useful idiots who garner support from interested parties focused on specific goals.

Why are you cutting a 2x4 with a hacksaw?